IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

"William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> Tue, 07 December 2010 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555683A68B6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:59:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.831
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.232, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFEGMC-Xqv8e for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.89]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 691823A68A3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19622 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2010 00:00:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.89) with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2010 00:00:43 -0000
Message-ID: <4CFECA8A.5070405@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:00:10 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
References: <AANLkTin6=8_Bhn2YseoSHGh1OSkQzsYrTW=fMiPvYps1@mail.gmail.com> <20101126000352.ad396b9a.eric@bisonsystems.net> <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com> <BB947F6D-15AA-455D-B830-5E12C80C1ACD@mnot.net> <81870DB1-B177-4253-8233-52C4168BE99D@apple.com> <F4D1B715-3606-4E9A-BFB2-8B7BC11BE331@mnot.net> <57D4B885-B1D8-482F-8747-6460C0FFF166@apple.com> <37A00E8D-B55C-49AD-A85C-A299C80FFF17@mnot.net> <4F2580A7-79C2-4B0A-BCE5-7FB6D9AA0ED7@apple.com> <C51C08FD-989E-43AC-A17B-EA4483CC2F9C@mnot.net> <CF412E56-591F-46F4-AC45-F21D40E30CC9@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF412E56-591F-46F4-AC45-F21D40E30CC9@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:59:19 -0000

On 12/7/2010 5:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> If there are other proposals that would work better and serve the same use cases, that
> would be useful input to the conversation. "Don't try to share a port with a Web server"
> is not a sufficiently fleshed out proposal to move the conversation forward, and does
> break some use cases that were identified as desirable. If someone cares to present a more
> concrete proposal, we'd be in a position to evaluate the tradeoffs.

Of course, no-one has said that.  Both CONNECT and connection-upgrade are well defined
semantics for tunneling that-which-is-not-HTTP, or that-which-extends-HTTP.  As long
as the conversation retains the basic premises that HTTP is not async/bidi, message
bodies can and will be buffered, etc, then all RFC-conformant solutions should stay
on the table.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email